Just leaked: 8 new nuclear power plants for UK

[Eyesaw]

AS usual nobody asked or speculated. Ministers just decided. This is HUGE. Eight new nuclear reactors on our isle - and they just slip it in quietly, as if no one will notice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...C-mostviewedbox

[davehsug]

AS usual nobody asked or speculated. Ministers just decided. This is HUGE. Eight new nuclear reactors on our isle - and they just slip it in quietly, as if no one will notice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...C-mostviewedbox

Slipped out maybe but still 20 years too late. Any sensible government would have had a rolling programme of building nuclear power stations, gradually increasing the amount of lectricity they supply & reducing our dependence on gas & coal. The question now is, why only 8? We should be aiming for at least 66% nuclear generation

Dave

Edited July 15, 2008 by davehsug

[Nick L]

In my opinion nuclear is the way forward. It is clean, fuel is abundant and it provides huge amounts of energy. Providing it is strictly monitored this is the solution to our energy problems.

[shuggee]

In my opinion nuclear is the way forward. It is clean, fuel is abundant and it provides huge amounts of energy. Providing it is strictly monitored this is the solution to our energy problems.

Unless mining, enrichment, transport and reproccessing of fuel is factored into the carbon footprint of nuclear....

None in Scotland though

[Roo]

Unless mining, enrichment, transport and reproccessing of fuel is factored into the carbon footprint of nuclear....

None in Scotland though

Very true Shugs.

Yet another reason why the Scots have got it so right. Along with prescriptions, tuition fees, etc, etc

[Nick H]

We should have started building nuclear power stations years ago. France has been doing so since the 1970s and 70% of her energy comes from this source.

I hear a lot about the issue of nuclear waste. Now I admit I'm not a scientist, so I have 2 genuine questions that perhaps someone could answer.

1. What is France (and other countries) doing in terms of storage?

2. Something I've always wondered - Why can't nuclear waste simply be blasted into outer space?

Trouble is, it's all about politics...obviously.

[shuggee]

2. Something I've always wondered - Why can't nuclear waste simply be blasted into outer space?

Trouble is, it's all about politics...obviously.

Think about it. Rockets aren't exactly 100% reliable and many have been known to blow up after launch. Imagine all that highly toxic irradiated waste scattered in the atmosphere?

[Nick L]

Yeah outer space may not be the best solution. But something needs to be done soon to provide our energy, fossil fuels won't last forever and most renewables just don't provide enough juice.

[Nick H]

Think about it. Rockets aren't exactly 100% reliable and many have been known to blow up after launch. Imagine all that highly toxic irradiated waste scattered in the atmosphere?

True. Are there any uses for nuclear waste?

[shuggee]

True. Are there any uses for nuclear waste?

I think in a couple of hundred years it may be a valuable source of rare elements that is of enormous usefulness - with futuristic technologies etc. But it's a bit of a gamble that's for sure!

[Nick H]

Has any method yet been found to somehow molecularly change the waste before it could be blasted off? Thanks to anyone who answers these questions - I am enthusiastic observer of weather and science but my technical knowledge of the matter is minimal.

[Michael Winston]

Very true Shugs.

Yet another reason why the Scots have got it so right. Along with prescriptions, tuition fees, etc, etc

.....and education!

Regards,

Mike.

Edit: It's also incredibly expensive.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Winston

[Nick H]

Edit: It's also incredibly expensive.

Well it's obviously heavily capital intensive so I imagine that is the case, but only for start-up costs.

Operating costs are probably relatively low.

Nuclear seems an efficient means of generation, unlike wind and solar which depend on prevailing conditions and must be very costly to store. I do need to do some research into waste.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Nick H

[shuggee]

The previous thread on this subject is still lurking in Serious Discussion Nick - with loads of different links:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=44678

[Frozen Lands]

I have to say that it annoys me when the goverment take this sort of stance. A quick fix approch as usual that will take an enormous amount of time to sort out when they decide to de-commission the reactors.

Why the hell cant the same amount of money put aside for this be put into Hydrogen research?

We know it can work, we know it is completely clean and if they thought it though, they could use solar and wind energy to create the hydrogen....off shore in the very place where the water needed can be found!!! a fuel cell the size of a car could probably run hundereds of homes with the only waste being water!

Abnd before anyone says "ah welll, there is no infrastructure", we already have gas pipes yes? That lead directly into homes? They already have many petrol staions the deliver LPG, surely the very same thing can be done for Hydrogen? And Honda have proved that cars can run very well indeed with the Honda Clarity

I honestly wonder how long it would really take to get hyfrogen into practice if they (the government and business) decided to redirect nuclear money to hydrogen research and infrastructure? How long does it take to build a nuclear power station and get it online? And then times that by 8.

If there were a willingness, I would lay money that Hydrogen would take the same amount of time to get started.

Arrrghhhhh!!!!!!!! Rant over

P.S. Thisi is also coming from a guy who has just seen one of the largest on-shore wind farms put up in his back garden (26 of the bu**ers) that never turn and have just ruined the the pennine hills in Rossendale. Next time anyone if driving along the M62 near Rochdale, take a look. Even though there about 13 miles from that point, you can see them all clear as a bell. Horrible! Get them off-shore!!!

Sorry...second rant over......maybe! :lol: lol

[SNOW-MAN2006]

I was reading something on MSN News yesterday that thee was plans to convert the North Sea into a power house and becoming the "Gulf" of wind turbines. There are plans to put billions of pounds of our money into this project.

We must be in a real power situation if we are also going to have 8 extra nuclear power plants.

On a more promising climate report, the first proto type hydrogen fuel station has been made and trialed for hydrogen powered cars, and experts predict that hydrogen cell powered cars will hit the consumer market in just 3 years!

so all promosing, but i am not to keen on nuclear power plants, because if one thing goes wrong, we will have a country wide disaster on our hands!

SNOW-MAN2006

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I thought the problem with a hydrogen economy is that it takes a good deal of energy to manufacture the hydrogen and it's therefore only about 50% efficient, basically acting as a battery? Ok, it only gives off water when used, but what about it its manufacture?

[Nick L]

Yeah to get the hydrogen to make the energy, you first need to put energy into the process to get the hydrogen. There must be something good about it though if manufacturers are putting hydrogen cars into production.

[Chris Knight]

I was reading something on MSN News yesterday that thee was plans to convert the North Sea into a power house and becoming the "Gulf" of wind turbines. There are plans to put billions of pounds of our money into this project.

We must be in a real power situation if we are also going to have 8 extra nuclear power plants.

On a more promising climate report, the first proto type hydrogen fuel station has been made and trialed for hydrogen powered cars, and experts predict that hydrogen cell powered cars will hit the consumer market in just 3 years!

so all promosing, but i am not to keen on nuclear power plants, because if one thing goes wrong, we will have a country wide disaster on our hands!

SNOW-MAN2006

The trouble with hydrogen is that it takes energy to make it, and the least expensive efficient method requires fossil fuels, like natural gas or coal, releasing CO₂, and real pollutants like sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.

You need to use electricity for electrolysis, and saline water produces acidic and alkaline by-products.

Biohydrogen is remarkably inefficient, and needs purified sterile reagents, and anaerobic temperature controlled digesters, creating biohazardous waste.

So where does clean hydrogen come from?

[Devonian]

The trouble with hydrogen is that it takes energy to make it, and the least expensive efficient method requires fossil fuels, like natural gas or coal, releasing CO₂, and real pollutants like sulphur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.

You need to use electricity for electrolysis, and saline water produces acidic and alkaline by-products.

Biohydrogen is remarkably inefficient, and needs purified sterile reagents, and anaerobic temperature controlled digesters, creating biohazardous waste.

So where does clean hydrogen come from?

Isn't hydrogen difficult to store? It's very light, tends to escape from even the best containment, and is, err, rather explosive? I don't think it's the solution to our energy needs.

Wiki reference.

[Nick L]

I remember seeing an article on a car that runs on air - compressed air that is. Now that has to be THE cleanest car!

I remember seeing an article on a car that runs on air - compressed air that is. Now that has to be THE cleanest car!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Isn't hydrogen difficult to store? It's very light, tends to escape from even the best containment, and is, err, rather explosive? I don't think it's the solution to our energy needs.

Wiki reference.

I agree that it is not currently the solution to our energy needs, but all the more reason to push on and find ways to make it viable - that basically means developing a safe, containable and sustainable fusion reactor. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the entire Universe - talk about sustainable energy!

CB

[The PIT]

Sad to say Nuclear maybe the quick fix as other fuel prices continue to rise.

The Government really does need to look into alternatives and also help home owners more if they add solar panels etc. The problem now is that the Government is facing serious recession and with Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for money will be short. I expect them to push ahead with Nuclear and leave it to our children to sort the radiative waste problem.

We're really paying for the lack of investment in alternative energy and will do for some time yet.

[SNOW-MAN2006]

Fossil Fuels; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant

"Subcritical fossil fuel power plants can achieve 36–38% efficiency. Supercritical designs have efficiencies in the low to mid 40% range"

Hydrogen; www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presidents_initiative.html

"12 hydrogen fueling stations demonstrated 53–58% fuel cell efficiency"

So Hydrogen would give more energy and be less polluting.

SNOW-MAN2006

[Nick L]

Let's just hope Fusion can be made possible, that would surely solve the world's energy needs. One plant would produce an immense amount of energy.